Google Updates and SERP Changes - May 2017

[reseller]

---

System: The following 5 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4842918.htm [webmasterworld.com] by robert_charlton - 4:18 am on May 2, 2017 (PDT -8)

---

Last month April 2017 hasn't been a nice month to webmasters as far as Google Algorithm Updates and SERPs fluctuations are concerned. There are several WebmasterWorld friends who have lost big portions of their organic traffic. If you just take a look at RankRanger's Google SERP Fluctuations chart you would notice dates of medium to high levels of fluctuations on April 17th, April 20th, April 25th, April 29th and April 30th. Those are just indications of the "volatile SERPs environment" of April 2017.

I'm just wondering what would the current month brings us of Google Algorithm Updates surprises :)

Personally I wish to see on this thread happy posts reporting recoveries and the return of at least parts of what have been lost of Google organic traffic during the latest few months. Let's hope so :)

[Shaddows]

Huge drops here in the UK overnight

Definitely a big shift overnight. Still trying to decide if it is a net gain or a net loss- only a few days of sales will tell that story.

[Jez123]

Huge drops here in the UK overnight

Huge drops in what? Traffic or ranking or both?

Apparently there is a confirmed review update happening right now but I can't find any details of it anywhere.

[chaplinashley]

Im referring to rankings as its too early to see data in Google Search Console, but if it follows the same patterns of things that have occurred over the last few days then traffic will inevitably be down significantly too.

At first it was a few of my client sites that were hit, now its 90% of them. There is no particular thing they all have in common so its hard to get to the bottom of what this update is.

Ive always followed white-hat SEO and never been on the receiving end of a penalty or drop in rankings for the 8+ years ive done SEO.

I have access to data of another website that i know is poor quality and has been using bad techniques and its somehow benefitted from this update. It was hit by Fred and now has almost recovered from what i can see.

I cant help but feel frustrated by this and for the first time i think Google have got this wrong!

[mosxu]

It looks like summer update is here,

[mosxu]

hungry dogs during summer time need to be fed

[nomis5]

I'm seeing a a 10% or so increase in traffic volume on Wednesday compared to what I would I expect. However, the upcoming May Bank Holiday might be the reason, the effect is a bit unpredictable. Also the good weather here in the UK might also be the reason, weather affects my main website significantly. Let's see what today brings.

UK informational.

[samwest]

wondering if somebody tripped on my server's cat 5 cable....zero traffic yet SERP's show many page one results. more FM.

[smilie]

>> @Cralamarre: If Penguin targets sites that engage in shady link building or sharing schemes, and my site doesn't engage in any sort of link building or sharing at all, how and why would a Penguin update affect my site?

You are confused as everyone else. Let me explain.

Over 80% of all links right now are scrapers and other auto-generated junk, at least what I am currently experiencing. Majority of these links are considered "bad" by Google. << Sink that one in.

For big sites who build links and who have large links profile , a few thousand extra garbage links per month from scrapers makes 0 difference.

For small sites who maybe have only 500-1000 good links, 1000 extra bad links is a death sentence.

So, since you are NOT engaging in link building, you are jeopardizing your site to die tomorrow, due to current clueless Google algo that adds negative weights to links they think are "bad" or "spam". This has been going on since 2013. You are lucky to never've been hit by it before.

>> According to the Google Search Console, there are currently 460,555 links to my site.

And that's why you have not seen this before. 460K links is a HUGE link profile to prevent negatively weighted links from sinking some of your pages. But since 80%+ of the web could be "bad" according to current clueless Google, the game is rigged against all of us and , mathematically, there's no way out.

>> Surely you can't be held responsible for every website in the world that links to your content. Can you?

Well, according to today's Google, not only you can , but you should also figure out which ones of the ever changing algo they don't like. And remove them. Makes their SEO friends very, very rich in the process too.

[edited by: smilie at 2:06 pm (utc) on May 25, 2017]

[smilie]

>> @reseller: So what happened on May 17 - May 18 could either be a Panda Refresh or a Penguin Refresh. I belong to Panda Refresh believers :)

Cold be both as it's hard to tell because you need a site and pages you know are NOT under Penguin. Then it'll be on-page content etc. related. But with 80%+ of all current links being scrapers, you can't possibly NOT be under Penguin IMHO.

[Cralamarre]

@smilie But how do you check through hundreds of thousands of links to see if any are bad? I've been going over the link sources that Google Search Console shows me and quite honestly, I haven't found any that strike me as obviously bad. Most are from high profile sites like Pinterest, Blogspot, Tumblr, Reddit, etc. Some are from industry-related websites. And of course, there's tons of random, small sites linking to my articles, but again, none of the ones I've seen stand out as being obviously "bad". So how do you know?

How does someone like me, essentially a one-man band when it comes to my website, check through over 450,000 links looking for bad ones? And if the majority of the links are from credible sources, would it matter if a small percentage of them were bad?

[Cralamarre]

What's really driving me crazy is that I can't find a single article of mine that has dropped in rankings. When I search for keywords related to my articles, my pages are still in the same top spots. Yet my traffic is continuing to drop. Last week (the 18th in particular) saw the biggest drop in traffic. This week, it's more of a small leak, yet still dropping.

Google Search Console backs up my observations. There are no major drops in rankings for any of the keywords it lists, yet traffic has dropped.

In one particular case, according to the Search Console, my article for one of my main keywords actually jumped from #2 to #1 on the 19th, yet the Clicks graph shows that traffic on that same day for the keyword dropped down to almost nothing. It has since recovered a bit, but even though Search Console shows that my article is still #1, the traffic is lower than when I was at #2. How is that possible?

Last week, people were talking about this update affecting long tail keywords more than main keywords. That idea still seems to make sense when I look at my rankings and traffic numbers.

[Shaddows]

Pinterest, Blogspot, Tumblr, Reddit

We are not featured in such locales so I am far from expert but... doesn't Google view UGC links with suspicion?

[Cralamarre]

@Shaddows But wouldn't that make ALL social media suspicious? I can't believe Google would start penalizing sites for having too many links from Pinterest.

One thing I've been noticing thought all of this upheaval is that I'm still seeing plenty of pages that have AdSense ads plastered all over them. One page in particular, which was ranked higher than mine, must have had 6 or 7 ads cluttering up the page, yet the article itself was only 2 or 3 paragraphs. And it was ranked HIGHER than mine.

I've been reading a lot from people saying they follow all the rules and yet their traffic is dropping, and I see sites that obviously don't follow any rules still ranking very high. My point is, I can't help but wonder if this update is favoring sites that generate more revenue for Google, either from AdWords or from AdSense. How else could a page with 5 times more ads than content be ranking at the top? Is Google rewarding the sites that bring in the most money?

[30K_a_month]

"How does someone like me, essentially a one-man band when it comes to my website, check through over 450,000 links looking for bad ones? And if the majority of the links are from credible sources, would it matter if a small percentage of them were bad?"

@Cralamarre

use a link detox service. you can get them for under $50. it will clearly show you all the worst links.

[glakes]

But how do you check through hundreds of thousands of links to see if any are bad?

I don't, and I suspect most people shouldn't either unless they've been targeted with negative seo link blasts or are trying to cleanup from their own past irresponsible link building. The latest Penguin that I know about does not demote pages/sites but devalues the bad links. Of course this does not apply to those with manual actions. Read the post "Google Penguin Doesn't Really Need Disavow Files" at [seroundtable.com...] for more information regarding how penguin handles links.

Google is really good at profiling users, whether it be to improve advertisement relevancy to users as they publicly state or for other reasons. I'm sure Google profiles webmasters as well and may factor that trust into sites they manage. I'm of the belief that disavowing links does nothing to improve ranks but does provide Google with a signal that they are knee deep into SEO. And my guess is that when Google sees people disavowing links it can impact the trust Google places in them, their sites and their link profiles. Of course this is all speculation, but logically speaking those that fret over bad links are more likely to be engaged in artificial link building and other SEO practices that violate Google's guidelines. I also believe certain types of site tinkering during an update can generate its own signal as well, which is part of the reason I believe knee jerk reactions by many during major updates is counter-productive. Though it is quite common to see these knee jerk reactions keeping a many webmasters chasing their tails when their time would be better spent elsewhere.

[Cralamarre]

@30K_a_month Thanks, and then what do you do once you know which links are bad? I doubt you can just contact the webmasters and ask them to remove the links.

[30K_a_month]

you put them into a disavow file and add to webmaster tools.

[fiverr.com...]

but to tell you the truth I agree with @glakes, I am not sure if it helps or not.

[Shaddows]

I've been reading a lot from people saying they follow all the rules and yet their traffic is dropping, and I see sites that obviously don't follow any rules still ranking very high. My point is, I can't help but wonder if this update is favoring sites that generate more revenue for Google, either from AdWords or from AdSense. How else could a page with 5 times more ads than content be ranking at the top? Is Google rewarding the sites that bring in the most money?

There is quite a lot to unpack here, and the unpacking of this generally causes offence. Please don't take any.

First of all, people say that follow the rules. Accepting this at face value is often not the best course. Sometimes they do not know the rules, other times they mean "I do things that no one gets caught for" - and then there is the disingenuous ones who really mean "I don't think it was my rule-breaking- someone give me another explanation".

Secondly, sites may break rules without getting caught. Google is not running a ranking competition. They have signatures and patterns which trigger penalties, and some SEOs can break the published rules without tripping the algorithmic police. Amazon, interflora, BMW and others also get a free pass, because Google looks stupid when you search for keywords and those sites don't come up. Avoiding looking stupid is more important than sticking to arbitrary rules.

Third, Google would be self-defeating to give adword customers a boost. They might move off adwords if organic does the trick. The only way to link adwords to SERP performance would be to make sure everyone knew there was a correlation, to incentivise people to buy adwords. That's the a priori case. Empirically, you can disprove this by... buying ads.

I mentioned elsewhere that #1 is often taken by ad-heavy crap. Often, that is because it is a big brand (cf non-paywall newspaper sites), other times it is a churn-and-burn site. Churn-and-burn is a really successful model, if you only care about cash today, and not about "building" something. But forums catering to black hats or warriors might be a better source of info there.

Actually, I'm going to pop over there and see what's happening on the other side of the web

[Cralamarre]

I thought I read that as of Penguin 4 (the latest version), bad links no longer lower the value of your site. Google simply lowers the value of the link itself.

One thing that's bothering me is that everyone is talking about backlinks right now as being the target of this update, but no one knows with any certainty that backlinks are in fact the issue. To my knowledge, no one, not even the so-called "experts" have been able to find the pattern between all the sites that have been affected. So again, as a "one man band" when it comes to my website, it's tough for me to throw all my time and attention behind one possible issue when it may be something else entirely.

It seems hard to believe (though not impossible, of course) that Google would suddenly penalize me for what are, for the most part, the same links to the same articles that I've had for years. Plus I have to think that my competitors who write articles on the same topics probably have very similar link profiles. And, the biggest point of confusion... if Google is penalizing me, wouldn't my rankings be affected? How are my articles still in the same top spots and yet I've lost 20% of my traffic? Where is the traffic going?

[Shaddows]

Pretty sure disavow does nothing for your site, but enough disavows for a domain gets it's link juice nuked.

[Shaddows]

no one knows with any certainty that backlinks are in fact the issue. To my knowledge, no one, not even the so-called "experts" have been able to find the pattern between all the sites that have been affected

This overnight one is almost certainly not link related. "Experts" peddle solutions because... they get paid for being experts. Generally, a month or so after an update, someone will publish a decent article, which will become received wisdom, even if not remotely accurate. Roger does not just bust martinis, he has a sideline in SEO myths too.

[glakes]

I thought I read that as of Penguin 4 (the latest version), bad links no longer lower the value of your site. Google simply lowers the value of the link itself.

This is true and why, IMO, you are better off not disavowing links. You have a much greater chance of doing more harm than good.

One thing that's bothering me is that everyone is talking about backlinks right now as being the target of this update, but no one knows with any certainty that backlinks are in fact the issue. To my knowledge, no one, not even the so-called "experts" have been able to find the pattern between all the sites that have been affected.

That's because the update is still ongoing and there is still flux in the serps. The dust is going to need to settle before anyone, including the experts, can weigh in with a credible opinion.

So again, as a "one man band" when it comes to my website, it's tough for me to throw all my time and attention behind one possible issue when it may be something else entirely.

That's the disadvantage of being a one man show or in my case small business without a dedicated SEO/marketing staff or outsourced agency under contract. Regardless, we can't make informed decisions when an update is only 50%, 75%, etc. complete. I will wait for the update to be completed, assess the damage (if any) and then take in the various opinions that will be tossed about by the so called experts before taking any action.

[Cralamarre]

@glakes "Though it is quite common to see these knee jerk reactions keeping a many webmasters chasing their tails when their time would be better spent elsewhere."

Exactly. Sorry, I didn't see your post until now. So in your opinion, it would be pointless to start digging for possible bad links. You either have them or you don't, and even if you have them, trying to do something about them might just make things worse.

Also as you said, the latest Penguin devalues the link, not the site itself.

[Shaddows]

then take in the various opinions that will be tossed about by the so called experts before taking any action.

Exactly. Sense-check the opinions. Read lots of posters, particularly the ones that do not repeat the trendy lines, and remember that truth usually does not belong to one side. All opinions may provide insight, even if some look dubious at first glance.

And like glakes says, no point acting mid-update, because you don't know the final outcome. I would go further and say- wait at least two weeks. It is almost certain that a sizeable subgroup reports a roll-back shortly after an update, presumably while G corrects the more obvious "false-positives".

[Jez123]

How are my articles still in the same top spots and yet I've lost 20% of my traffic?

Yes, I would like to hear theories on this too. No one has touched on any kind of explanation for this yet several people have stated it's affecting them.

[30K_a_month]

@Jez123 Surely this is down to longtail keywords coming in and out. This should show clearly in semrush if you check.

@Cralamarre unfortunately, the answer to your problem is get more quality links. =( anything else is snake oil assuming your onsite SEO is good.

[Shaddows]

"same position, less traffic" can only be a personalisation thing. Maybe ranks are down, apart from your own personal view. Maybe Google has dropped you out of various personalisation cohorts completely.

Of these, the latter is more likely because your average rank would not drop, and could conceivably go up.

[reseller]

Maybe we should give a name to the current Google Algorithm Update which has started on May 17 - May 18, 2017 and still in progress.
Google's Nightmare Algorithm Update :)

[edited by: reseller at 3:49 pm (utc) on May 25, 2017]

[smilie]

>> @Cralamarre: There are no major drops in rankings for any of the keywords it lists, yet traffic has dropped.

It could be the summer / Memorial Day weekend effect too.

>>@Cralamarre: It seems hard to believe (though not impossible, of course) that Google would suddenly penalize me for what are, for the most part, the same links to the same articles that I've had for years.

Yep, if you pull G newly discovered links report, you'll see strange stuff, from 2008-2011 newly discovered. Site owners get penalized and then decide to update their site. Or convert to https in an attempt to gain back traffic. And all of a sudden 10 year old link is on another URL and is new.

>> @Shaddows: Actually, I'm going to pop over there and see what's happening on the other side of the web

It's interesting that I'm too often find more information over there then here.

[edited by: smilie at 3:55 pm (utc) on May 25, 2017]

[smilie]

>> @Cralamarre: But how do you check through hundreds of thousands of links to see if any are bad?

You either spend months and months with little sleep and do it yourself. And then you have no way of knowing which ones are exactly bad and which aren't, and also some can be bad today and good tomorrow or the opposite.

Or you pay big bucks to SEOs who are Google's friends or who already unstuck a few sites. Or like previously mentioned, one of the link delete sites (I personally had no results from those).

But from now on you are likely to be hit again and again, so be prepared to pay an SEO perpetual ransom if you don't learn it.